"Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to "deal" with Robin."
Tell me about it, Barry is too intellectually, emotionally stunted and retarded to watch Robin's brilliance - his intelligence, wit, irony, sensitivity, love. Is this even a topic of discussion - that Barry has tools to deal with Robin? God I hope not...LOL. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Ann <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > wrote: > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. His criteria > for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. > They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes > personal challenge coming from others. If that challenge takes the form of > anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to > question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, > apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack > or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the > part of that person. > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. > > Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever. > > > > Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like > you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a > person he does not respect. > > Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to "deal" with Robin. He is so far > out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is unknown or > possible that to actually interact on even the most superficial level with > Robin would require something Barry simply does not possess or refuses to > acknowledge. It is kind of like asking a seal to run the 100m dash in 10 > seconds on dry land. Not possible. > > > > > > > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or > unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must > be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and > can easily be missed) argues for his position.> > > > > The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any > reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. > > This excuse of "respect" is not about that at all. That is a convenient > but erroneous description of what is really going on. It isn't about what > Barry feels about the other person it is what the other person makes Barry > feel about himself and THAT is what Barry dislikes. When he is made to feel > inadequate he will point his finger at the other person and claim they are > to blame; they are too boring or stupid or dogmatic. He will never take > responsibility for himself and the reasons he feels the way he does. It > will always be about the other guy. > > > >He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an > opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing > exercise than conversation. > > Exactly. > > > > > If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they > often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting > or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to > your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably > predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to > predict that you were not gunna be friends. > > Yes, I will give you that. Barry IS predictable. Ridiculously so. This is > a man who lives in a world that is bound and known and very limited. He can > only venture so far with a person - new acquaintance or old. When he hits > the property line, where the boundaries end, he stops dead. And those > boundaries are those determined by his own limitations of self. > > > > So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the > ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. > > I don't think so Curtis. Many people have pretty good ideas of how Barry > functions but Robin's today took the proverbial cake; it was far and away > the most sophisticated reading of the man and one that you might have a > chance of comprehending but Barry never will for, if he could, it would > disprove what Robin wrote and what I have just said. Not that we said or > are saying the same thing. > > > >Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really > interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me > for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or > that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way > conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that > person. > > You can't generalize like this. I, for one, am always open to reading > someone's post for what new tone or attitude might emerge. I have ideas > about what people are like here but I am happy to be surprised and welcome > that surprise when it occurs. I am as open to Barry as I am to anyone here > and have commented positively about some of his posts. You simply can not > clump everyone here as operating from the same origin of perception. > > > > I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each > other space to express our opinions even if we differ. > > But you never do differ. You both seem to agree to agree. > > > So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other > person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've > received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not > going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. > > > > > Or you can prove me wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took > > > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before > > > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, > > > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. > > > > > > > > > > > > Color me not surprised. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? > > > > > > > > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to > > > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. > > > > > > > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) > > > > > > > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called > > > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. > > > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain > > > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just > > > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get? > > > > Just sayin'... > > > > > > > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining > > > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, > > > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would > > > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying > > > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten > > > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten > > > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. > > > > > > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a > strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and > subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person > (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any > concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he > really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how > successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). > BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend > persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes > his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those > readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. > > > > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or > unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must > be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and > can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really > have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of > controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in > the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he > writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. > > > > > > If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely > opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your > very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of > psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will > ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually > acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any > responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of > truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an > unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but > anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you > are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is > feeling nothing. A zero. > > > > > > What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious > sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how > sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, > and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he > is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate > insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader > reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he > writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual > reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which > makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter > what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind > game. > > > > > > BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over > his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting > his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the > service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers > whom he knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as > I have stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone > else but BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. > Not BW. Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from > others, but he vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This > means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is > expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any > evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this. > > > > > > Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what > someone writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there. > > > > > > It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the > quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to > remain inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he > has been posting only to himself. As if this were the case, since he has > removed himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the > experience of the reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to > reality and what abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter > about which he is writing. > > > > > > BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or > scornful or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting > to challenge what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a > real intention inside the other person, is the extent to which that > intention--and the writing of a counter-post--will end up in empty > space--No one is there. > > > > > > BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to his own subjectivity. His > pleasure comes from the ineluctable consequence of this as it affects other > human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > <seekliberation@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back > in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I > ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole > group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american > male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to > manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily > what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming > decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for > me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued > in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth > that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult > within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but > now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a > lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that > were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some > masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a > sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. > The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I > honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without > any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually > drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all > agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho > of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive > decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official > representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think > that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong > with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the > rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics > about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take > someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the > fanatacism goes through the roof. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed > some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major > pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything > to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military > recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seekliberation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" > <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" > movement thing > > > > > > > > > from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess > I could > > > > > > > > > look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one > of my good > > > > > > > > > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me > to > > > > > > > > > participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it > was awkward > > > > > > > > > for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high > pressure tactics > > > > > > > > > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my > house and the FF > > > > > > > > > guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I > didn't care > > > > > > > > > to get recruited to a new group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for > his blatant > > > > > > > > > manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
